T RAGHU Vs. D B RAVEENDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three criminal revision cases arises out of the common order dated 23-04-2003 in crl. M. P. No. 322 of 2002 in C. C. No. 250 of 1995, Crl. M. P. No. 323 of 2002 in C. C. No. 194 of 1996 and Crl. M. P. No. 324 of 2002 in C. C. No. 195 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of I Class, Hindupur, wherein the said petitions filed by the first respondent herein under Section 245 Cr. P. C. seeking discharge of the prosecution for the offences under Sections 379, 380, 420, 467, 468, 406 and 409 IPC, were allowed and the first respondent-accused was discharged.

(2.) AS the three case arise out of the common order and based on same set of facts involving similar questions for consideration, they are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) T. Raghu, the petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1351 and 1352 of 2003 is the son of t. Narayanachetty, the petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1353 of 2003. They filed three complaints against the first respondent herein accusing him of various offences stated above. Orginally they gave complaints to the police, but as the police took no action, the complainants filed private complaints before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences in C. C. No. 250 of 1995, C. C. No. 194 of 1996 and c. C. No. 195 of 1996. According to the complainants, the first respondent-accused entered into an agreement of sale dated 20-12-1993 regarding purchase of certain plant and machinery of Padmavathi Steel rolling Mills belonging to the complainants andthe accused was put in possession on the same day, whereupon the accused dismantled the steel rolling mills and took away machinery items despite protest by the complainant and the accused paid only an advance of rs. 2,00,000/- and failed to pay balance of sale consideration as per the terms of the agreement. The complainant further alleges that the accused committed breach of the contract and failed to perform his part of the same and raised a false plea that he paid rs. 6,00,000/- under agreement and indulged in material alteration of the contents of the agreement by resorting to forgery, fabrication and cheating the complainant.